Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity

Abstract

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions for recruitment, career advancement, rewarding and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on three different indexes: the h-index, g-index and "fractional scientific strength", or FSS, an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences over the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as h- or g-index are compared with that by more accurate FSS.

arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1810.12844

References in corpus (7)

• Does the h-index have predictive power?
• Universality of citation distributions: towards an objective measure of scientific impact
• A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments
• Allocative efficiency in public research funding:can bibliometrics help?
• Testing bibliometric indicators by their prediction of scientists promotions
• Ranking forestry journals using the h-index
• Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences